Talk:Post-attacks factions
Is Cheyenne it's own country The article says "The Allied States of America is a separatist faction", are we sure about that. If I remember correctly, Cheyenne never declared independence from the USA, but merely (like Columbus) claimed the be the legitimate government of the USA. Cheyenne did for some reason, change the USA's name and flag, an act which Columbus doesn't recognize, but and flag and name change in and of itself doesn't make Cheyenne it's own country (the US flag changed every time a new state was added, that didn't make a new country). Unless I'm missing something here, Cheyenne does not conceder the region west of the Mississippi river to be it's own independent country; Cheyenne simply considers itself to be the legitimate government of the (renamed) United States, the whole thing, east and west of the river. It's possible that I'm just misremembering, it has been awhile sense I watched the show. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:27, July 28, 2013 (UTC) That is a great observation. I am not too sure of this myself. Doesn't changing the Constitution (against the will of all the eastern states - which are needed to amend the Constitution) and changing the name of the country ("Allied States") perhaps imply that this is a whole new country? -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:55, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :Not necessarily. If it were the undisputed government of the United States doing this, no one would conceder that to be "a separatist faction" or a whole new country. After the Pacific War Japan changed it's Constitution and changed it's name from "Empire of Japan" to "Japan"; this was not a newly independent country, it was simply a continuation of Japan. Japan could be considered a "new country" at that point, in the sense that it was very different from the old Empire, but it was still Japan. Japan did not declare independence from, well itself, like the 13 colonies declared independence from the British Empire. :The US changed it's Constitution numerous times, every time an amendment was passed and when the Articles of Confederation (the original Constitution) was replaced with the "early modern" Constitution (the prescient-day Constitution minus the amendments). Not involving the eastern states would be of dubious constitutionality, but it isn't unprecedented. Changes to the Articles of Confederation were only allowed with the unanimous consent of the states, yet there was one state (New Hampshire maybe) that did not connect to the new Constitution. :Virgina during the civil war had two governments both claming to be the legitimate government of Virgina (one Unionist, one Confederate). The Unionist government consented to the creation of West Virgina out of Western Virgina, but did so without the involvement of the Confederate-controlled counties. This was a vastly larger change then a new name and new constitution, yet this did not make Virgina a "separatist faction" or new state. West Virgina obviously was, but Virgina itself was not; the Unionist government, tough recognizing West Virgina's independence from Virgina, did not conceder itself a separate state from Virgina, it contused to conceder itself the the legitimate government of Virgina. There are at least a few other cases of slimmer dubious constitutionality like the two I've presented. :Mind you this is "corrupt at it's core" Cheyenne we're talking about, constitutionality probably isn't a high priority for them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:18, July 29, 2013 (UTC) You put up a good argument, and I am inclined to agree. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 17:43, July 29, 2013 (UTC) :Here's the video where President Tomarchio declares the ASA. He refers to it as a "new country". This could be interpreted as a deceleration of independence from the USA, or as saying that America is a "new country" in the scene that Japan was. There is one other thing I've found, the article says that the ASA flag has only 21 stars, not the 47-50 it would preumably have if Cheyenne still concerded itself legitimate government of the USA. Assuming that the flag info is correct, I think we can safely interprete Tomarchio's statement as a deceleration of independence. :This would mean that Cheyenne has given up it's claim to be the legitimate government of the USA, and now conceders itself the government of (in Tomarchio's words) "a new country ... from the Mississippi to the Pacific". This does not necessarily mean that Columbus is the undisputed USA government, Serbia-Montenegro calmed to be a continuation of Yugoslavia, yet the rest of Yugoslavia (and most of the world) rejected this claim. Tomarchio did not call Columbus "United States", or even "Columbus", he called it "the eastern block states". This strongly suggests that just as the rest of Yugoslavia rejected Serbia-Montenegro's claim to be Yugoslavia, the ASA rejects Columbus's claim to be the USA. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:17, July 29, 2013 (UTC) Again, good argument. Feel free to add this into a "trivia" or "notes" section on the page and only include what is explicitly confirmed in the show in the content sections. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 20:00, July 30, 2013 (UTC) :I made an edit to the section. It could probably use some clearer wording, but otherwise that what you had in mind? I thought it was impotent to note that the show hasn't explicitly confirmed what the situation was. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:20, July 30, 2013 (UTC) Yes, that looks good. If you want to, for instance, list possibilities which are likely or provide background, create a Trivia header and list them under there. Alternatively, you can create a Successor States from the United States/Speculations page. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:04, July 30, 2013 (UTC) :About the 21 star flag, it is possible that Cheyenne hasn't declared independence, and that the flag has star for every "liberated" state, rather then every state in the union, or something. Still, even under tease circumstances, it would be really really odd for the US government to use a 21 star flag, it does very strongly suggest that Cheyenne has declared independence. :I had another thought. This articles needs to be renamed; "Successor States from the United States" assumes that the United States has broken up, and unless Cheyenne (or Columbus) has declared independence, it hasn't (aside from Texas). I think instead of calling the governments "Allied States" and "United States", I think we should call them "Cheyenne government" and "Columbus government", for largely the same reasons. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:07, July 31, 2013 (UTC) I think Tomarchio pretty clearly states that this faction's name is the Allied States of America, so I'd rather have that kept. Cheyenne government, however, can also be used as a substitute to avoid repetition. About the article name; I also don't like it. "Post-attacks factions of the United States" seem better to you? -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 18:51, July 31, 2013 (UTC) :My reasing is that we shouldn't call Columbus "United States" because if Cheyenne hasn't declared independence, it is not the United States, but mealy one of the governments. The United States is the whole county, east and west of the river. It would be better to call it "Columbus government", and for consistency's sake we should use the term "Cheyenne government". Also the Cheyenne government well predates the AS, the AS was only proclaimed a little after Cheyenne took Jericho (as of Why We Fight Cheyenne called itself "United States"). If Cheyenne hasn't declared independence, then "Allied States" is not the faction's name per se, but is simply Cheyenne's new term for the United States. :As for the title, I'm not sure. It's a bit of a mouthful, but I don't really have a better idea. Let's go with it, we can always come up with a better one later. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:20, July 31, 2013 (UTC) Alright, but for the sake of keeping with what is implied in the show (which, I think is independence), we should keep referring to it as the ASA as the official name. I change the name simply to "Post-attacks factions"; so we can add all the other known factions such as Ravenwood here for centralization. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 21:56, July 31, 2013 (UTC) :I made an edit, is that what you had in mind; using the term "Cheyenne government" along with "Allied States", but making it clear that the official term is "Allied States"? :Would Ravenwood count as it's own faction? I would think that Ravenwood (along with J&R) would count as part of Cheyenne, not as it's own faction. J&R puts on a show of being a private corporation, but in reality it's one and the same with the Cheyenne government, not it's own faction. Listing eather would be like listing the AS Army as a faction, in my opinion. The UN peacekeepers on the other hand would certainly be a faction. :As for independence, the evidence does very strongly suggest it, but it isn't certain. As for the 21 star flag, Cheyenne was using that in "Why We Fight", back when they were still calling themselves "United States". This suggests that the flag is following something along the lines of a "liberated" state model, so it's not a smoking gun. Ether way "Allied States" is the official name: in the case of independence it's the name of the new trans-Mississippi country, otherwise it's (according to Cheyenne) the new name of the United States. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:06, July 31, 2013 (UTC) :Somehow, that edit didn't get saved. I made it again, it was saved this time. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:46, August 1, 2013 (UTC) I think Ravenwood and J&R would be their own factions. We should just mention that they are strongly aligned with the Allied States. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 17:10, August 1, 2013 (UTC) :Ravenwood is a division of J&R, and saying that they are strongly aligned with the Allied States is rather like saying that the Nazi Party was strongly aliened with Nazi Germany, or the (Russian) Communist Party was strongly aligned with Communist Russia. If I remember correctly, the SS was technically part of the Nazi Party, rather then the German military. :Still, If I haven't convinced you, make your edit if you'd like. It would be easier to discuss this if we could see what we're discussing, and far easier to come up with a compromise if we both made some bold edits (see also wikipedia:WP:BRD). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:57, August 3, 2013 (UTC) Federal District of Cheyenne The article says "Cheyenne, Wyoming (now known as the "Federal District of Cheyenne")", but unless I'm missing something, we don't know that the city and the District are one in the same. Washington, before the Organic Act of 1871, was merely one city within the District of Columbia. The District of Cheyenne might work the same way, with Cheyenne being merely one city in the District. It's also possible that the District is just one part of the city. The city has 24 sq mi, far larger the the 10 sq mi allowed in the US Constitution for a Federal District (tough the AS Constitution may be different). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:57, July 29, 2013 (UTC) Feel free to add this into a "trivia" or "notes" section on the page. In the actual content of the page, we should only include what is confirmed by the show. So you can change certain wording to make it more vague; keeping the question open. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 20:00, July 30, 2013 (UTC) :My main point is that the city of Cheyenne is not necessarily the same thing as the District of Cheyenne. The point of my listing those other possibilities was to demonstrate that point, not that they necessarily should be added to the article. They probably shouldn't be, this is not the Cheyenne, Wyoming article. I'll remove the "(now known as the "Federal District of Cheyenne")". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:00, July 30, 2013 (UTC)